Sorry, Earl. You are just wrong.
That kind of response is not very conducive for rational discussion, is
it? Kind of makes you angry?
My reference to mental was intended to be humorous. You even quoted my
little smiley face next to the remark. Ah well, you are a serious guy I
guess.
Any way, I think the whole analogue/digital foofaraw is kind of silly.
You either like what you hear or see, or not. I have a collection of
hundreds of LPs, mostly classical, from good labels and fully a quarter
or a third of them are the badly produced ones you say are the
exception. There are other flaws I didn't mention like the crimped,
untrackable edge caused by pulling the vinyl out of the mold too
quickly, the bubbles injected at high pressure that continue to expand
year after year so that the little click gets worse and worse. The
roll of of the highs starting below 15KHz unless you pop for the extra
cost audiophile recording, if it is available. And then you hear the
tape hiss. Well, I used to when I was younger.
Where I have a problem is that people cannot be satisfied with what
they hear or see. To me a 5MP Coolpix produced a substantially better
image than my OM4t with one of the lesser Oly zooms in a side by side I
did. A 6MP camera with a large sensor does much better than the
Coolpix. Yet people make pronouncements based on mathematical certainty
that digital will not equal film until it hits 10, 12, or 15MP or
whatever. It is just BS, in my opinion. Sort of like someone preferring
to look at the back yard through the screen door rather than opening
the door and actually seeing without the (grain)interference. I feel a
little the same about stereo. Once CD equalization was worked out 3 or
4 years after their introduction sound took a giant leap in my opinion.
Before that judicious use of the treble knob tamed some of those overly
bright early disks. The trouble was that people really have trouble
hearing the differences and so they internalize what they are told by a
clever salesman. They hang onto what they are told because hearing is
so adaptable that the small differences in good equipment disappear
after a few minutes except for really gross differences like big
variations in frequency response. (I had AR 3a's too, but was happy to
move on. It was a groundbreaker, but just a stage in the development of
speakers and I am much happier with speakers with relatively flat
frequency response.)
So my point is enjoy what you enjoy, but allow me to enjoy what I enjoy
and don't knock it unless it is good natured ribbing which is all I
intended. As for SACD and DVD-A, if they were significantly better
sounding(as opposed to technically) they would have replaced CD in the
five years or so they have been around, as CD replaced the vinyl LP in
a similar period.
But then, as I think I said. I don't care. Tomorrow morning I am off to
Alaska for the first time and I am excited as hell. Sorry to rant and
run. :-)
Winsor
Long Beach, CA
USA
On Jun 17, 2004, at 6:31 PM, Earl Dunbar wrote:
> Sorry Winsor, that's just wrong. Not to start a flame event, but
> you're comparing a badly produced and/or manufactured LP to a
> (perhaps) average (by today's standards) or excellently made CD. So
> what? Analogue addicts (yes there is a list of such a name) admit the
> limitations of the LP and also admit that higher rez digital formats
> (eg, SACD) are FINALLY catching up to LPs. Not that I am an expert on
> SACD and DVD-A, but it's taken what, 20 years or so?
>
> Analogue is analogue, digital is digital. Both have strengths and
> weaknesses. To say that preference for analogue is "mental" in the
> way I suspect you meant it, is a bit ungracious. The listening
> experience is ALWAYS mental... an experience in the brain of the
> physical phenomenon detected by the ear and transmitted through the
> neural system. Similar with seeing.
>
> Earl
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 6/17/2004 at 9:03 AM Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
>> I used to chalk it up to hearing as well. But when I have, even on
>> superb equipment, pointed out the clicks, pops, cutter rumble recorded
>> on the LP, wow from off center holes, rolled off bass not equalized by
>> RIAA curves, a groove that is distorted a little more each time you
>> play it, and a shallow noise floor, most "analog is better types"
>> admit
>> hearing them, but insist that it still sounds better. I have concluded
>> it not hearing ability. It is mental. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Winsor
>> Long Beach, California
>> USA
>> On Jun 17, 2004, at 8:48 AM, Walt Wayman wrote:
>>
>>> But, oh, they sound so much better. An LP played with a good
>>> cartridge and tone arm on a proper turntable, not some piece of crap
>>> from Circuit City or Best Buy for $200, is still today, 20 years
>>> after
>>> we were told we were getting "perfect sound forever," obviously, to
>>> any but the hearing impaired, superior to a CD. And if the amp and
>>> pre-amp give off both the aural and visual glow of tubes, so much the
>>> better. I've got lots of CDs, but I still buy vinyl when I can find
>>> it.
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|